Being skeptical of skepticism?

[drkitten]

Yes.. that's the way logic works. The trick is not arguing with someone that your car is definitely there, because you have no way of knowing for sure.

Yes, but when someone tries to tell me that my car is not there, or tries to persuade others that my car is not there, I may need to stop them.

There are two obvious ways to do that. One is to argue with them, citing facts and evidence. The other is simply to punch their lights out. I assume that, since you avoid arguing, you use the second exclusively?

Perhaps I can phrase the Bigfoot question in a way that both satisfies your sense of epistemology and at the same time makes the utter vacuity of your position clear. "The Bigfoot body is a hoax, because the probability of Bigfoot existing is smaller than that of every car in the United States being stolen simultaneously." (I can state this with complete confidence, because we know car thefts do occur and we have nothing but negative evidence about Bigfoot, as well as several well documented scientific proofs of hoaxes.)

 

[drkitten]

No, nobody "needs" to take a pragmatic (i.e., fallacious) approach to skepticism.

Nobody needs to take an approach to skepticism at all. But if you are going to take an approach to skepticism at all, the pragmatic approach is the only one that can be taken that will yield useful results.

There are many other belief systems that can and have been embrace, including blind credulity and ignorance. However, a pragmatic evaluation of the different belief systems shows that pragmatic skepticism is uniquely placed to permit people to believe things for which there is supporting evidence and to disbelieve things for which there is evidence against.

(And, yes, failure to find evidence after a search is in fact evidence against. See Bayes' theorem for proof.)

 

[deep]

It's amazing you can actually type and do things and not spend all of your days drooling on yourself, then. How can you possibly make any kind of decision without assuming that the world is, for all intents and purposes, real, etc. ?

a) there's a difference between believing something is true, and claiming that there is proof that it's true.

b) we're really talking about skepticism in the context of debate, or interaction with others.

The point of skepticism is beign a methodology that is as useful as possible. If it can't lead you to conclusions, even if that means ignoring remote possibilities, then it has no use at all.

Yes, skepticism can lead you to doubt that something is true. There's nothing wrong with doubting. The problem is specifically when you decide that something isn't true simply because someone else cannot prove that it is - doubting vs. denying, if you will.

 

[chillzero]

Yes, but when someone tries to tell me that my car is not there, or tries to persuade others that my car is not there, I may need to stop them.

There are two obvious ways to do that. One is to argue with them, citing facts and evidence. The other is simply to punch their lights out. I assume that, since you avoid arguing, you use the second exclusively?

Only those two?
How about going and revisiting the evidence - in case you might actually be mistaken (someone may have removed it).

 

[EHocking]

Well, I agree - it certainly does appear to be a hoax, but what if it isn't? If I decide that it's definitely a hoax, that makes it difficult to objectively evaluate any future evidence they may present.

Given their track record, any future evidence presented by these two will be give even more sceptical thought. It's an accumulation of evidence that wins me over. Currently that accumulation points to a hoax and barely requires further discussion.

I am confident, based on the evidence thus far, that this is a hoax and any further "evidence" presented by them will be equally excerable.
[/quote]Maintaining an agnostic point of view eliminates (or greatly reduces) the possibility of confirmation bias.[/quote]I noticed your Truzzi quote, so I can see where you are coming from.

But, in certain cases, where the sufficient evidence has been accumulated, after thorough, open and expert analysis, it is quite reasonable to set aside an agnostic opinion on a subject.

I quite often say that I'm more than happy to eat crow on my opinion on crop circles and dowsing (to name two).
But I'm equally confident that I'll have little need to worry about looking for corvid recipes, on those two subjects at least.

This is not pseudoscepticism as Mr Truzzi asserts, the above has come from weighing the evidence in the balance.

For instance, I don't claim to fully understand the current theories on the Big Bang, but I have much more confidence in the explanations put forward than I give credence to Creation "theory".

While both could be equally described as unknowable, it is much more reasonable to settle for the explanation that does not require belief in it.

 

[drkitten]

Only those two?
How about going and revisiting the evidence - in case you might actually be mistaken (someone may have removed it).

My lifespan is too short. When someone comes in every fifteen minutes to tell me that my car has been replaced by a breadfruit tree, how often do I need to go check before I just dismiss him as a lunatic? When am I supposed to get real work done?

Deep44 suggests that I can never dismiss him. I say, pragmatically, that I can dismiss him on the first time, because cars don't do that.

 

[deep]

But, in certain cases, where the sufficient evidence has been accumulated, after thorough, open and expert analysis, it is quite reasonable to set aside an agnostic opinion on a subject.

I quite often say that I'm more than happy to eat crow on my opinion on crop circles and dowsing (to name two).
But I'm equally confident that I'll have little need to worry about looking for corvid recipes, on those two subjects at least.

This is not pseudoscepticism as Mr Truzzi asserts, the above has come from weighing the evidence in the balance.

I can agree with that - it's a reasonable way of looking at it.

(sorry for the short reply; gotta run)

 

[drkitten]

The problem is specifically when you decide that something isn't true simply because someone else cannot prove that it is - doubting vs. denying, if you will.

But that's not what people are doing. No one on this debate is deciding that something isn't true SIMPLY because someone else cannot prove that it is.

The statement to which you originally objected was :

"Nobody will ever produce a Bigfoot body because Bigfoot does not exist."

Logically, that's actually a valid argument.

Premise 1 : All things-that-are-Bigfoot are nonexistent.
Premise 2 : No nonexistent thing is a thing-for-which-a-body-can-be-produced.
Conclusion : No things-that-are-Bigfoot are things-for-which-a-body-can-be-produced.

Classic syllogistic logic, form Darii, which has been recognized as valid since classical times.

You disagree with the truth of the first premise.... but that doesn't render the argument invalid. And the statement that "Bigfoot does not exist" is not based simply on someone else's inability to prove his existence, but upon the much more damning inability of anyone else to find any evidence suggesting his existence, in conjunction with a long and well-documented history of hoaxes and forgeries.

Like it or not, Bigfoot hoaxes are a fact, and any rational observer will take those into account when evaluating the truth or credibility of a statement about Bigfoot.

 

[deep]

Deep44 suggests that I can never dismiss him. I say, pragmatically, that I can dismiss him on the first time, because cars don't do that.

You could dismiss him as such if he was diagnosed with some sort of mental illness by a doctor - other than that he just failed to prove his claim.

 

[Limbo]

Sorry to butt in, EHocking, but...

I have a similar stance on dowsing and non-human crop circles makers.
The evidence is so weak or has been so readily exposed as deeply flawed if not concocted, that I am very confidenct in asserting that there is no basis to the "art" of dowsing

...in this case your stance has failed you. Allow me to explain.

You say there is no basis for the "art" of dowsing. That is incorrect. The basis is the unconscious mind and the ideomotor effect. The mechanism, whether its a pendulum or a dowsing rod, serves as a bridge of sorts between the conscious mind and the unconscious mind. A way for the two to communicate.

In a nutshell the unconscious mind micro-manages ideomotor motion to manipulate the mechanism in a designated way that gets a message across to the conscious mind. There is nothing "supernatural" about it, however it IS a "basis" for the "art" of dowsing.

Of course some people attribute the motion of the mechanism to "supernatural" forces. That is wrong, there is nothing "supernatural" about it, however that doesn't mean there is no basis for that belief. And that doesn't mean that using a mechanism to communicate with the unconscious mind isn't occasionally useful. The unconscious mind is very powerful.

If you don't believe me then make your own pendulum or dowsing rod and google for instructions so you can try it yourself. Or PM me.

http://www.hypnosis101.com/ideomotor.htm

Then you go on to say:

or that crop circles are anything other than shapes trampled into crop by people.

Again, your stance has failed you. While we do know that there are organized groups of people making crop-circles, that doesn't solve the mystery. Not even close. What it does do, however, is give people an excuse to stop investigating...give people an easy out. Unfortunately.

Here is a documentary consisting of many interviews with many well known circlemakers. Their testimonies are quite interesting.

part 1

part 2

I'm not going to tell you what the circlemakers say, I think it's better for people to hear it straight from the horses mouth.

 

[chillzero]

My lifespan is too short. When someone comes in every fifteen minutes to tell me that my car has been replaced by a breadfruit tree, how often do I need to go check before I just dismiss him as a lunatic? When am I supposed to get real work done?

Well, the initial scenario wasn't that people came in every 15 minutes. Therefore my point was that a skeptic should be aware that they may be wrong. Yes, they may have parked the car there that morning, but should someone come and tell them there is no car there, they may be foolish to dismiss that without confirmation.

 

[EHocking]

Sorry to butt in, EHocking, but...

...in this case your stance has failed you. Allow me to explain.

You say there is no basis for the "art" of dowsing. The basis is the unconscious mind and the ideomotor effect.

I'm well aware of the ideomoter effect. What I meant by my statement (but not, admittedly by the words I typed) is that there is no basis to the idea that dowsing "does" anything. I have seen no evidence for it's efficacy in finding water, oil, gold, bodies, whatever.

<snip>The unconscious mind is very powerful.

I think you are confusing the unconscious mind and the subconscious mind.

If not, what scientific evidence do you have that supports your supposition that dowsing can be used to externalise the link between the conscious and uncounscious mind?

Again, your stance has failed you. While we do know that there are organized groups of people making crop-circles, that doesn't solve the mystery. Not even close. What it does do, however, is give people an excuse to stop investigating...give people an easy out. Unfortunately.

I disagree. I have yet to have anyone present sufficiently strong evidence that (elaborate) crop circle have anything but a human origin.

I'm not going to tell you what the circlemakers say, I think it's better for people to hear it straight from the horses mouth.

Would you like to summarise the salient points?

I really not inclined at the moment to sit through 3 hours of video unless there is something that you feel is compelling enough to support your claim that there is something more to crop circles that a bunch of jokers with planks.

 

[drkitten]

You could dismiss him as such if he was diagnosed with some sort of mental illness by a doctor - other than that he just failed to prove his claim.

I see. So in your worldview, if someone wanders into your office and says your car has just turned into a breadfruit tree, you need to either take him to a doctor or go out to the parking lot and check?

Simply ignoring him isn't a valid option?

Boy, I hate to think what your boss thinks about your work ethic.

I have a valid argument for dismissing him out of hand:


Premise one : No inorganic physical object will turn into a breadfruit tree.
Premise two : My car is an inorganic physical object
Conclusion : My car will not turn into a breadfruit tree.

I believe this is technically Ferio.

Now, you've already accepted the law of conservation of mass as "proven." Premise one is at least as well proven as the law of conservation of mass, as is premise two. The conclusion follows from the truth of the premises via a valid syllogism. And as a result, I am LOGICALLY justified in dismissing his claim, not on the basis that he has failed to prove it, but on the basis that it violates a well-established law of the universe.

 

[Limbo]

If not, what scientific evidence do you have that supports your supposition that dowsing can be used to externalise the link between the conscious and uncounscious mind?

Simply read this page carefully, follow the instructions, and see for yourself. It's quite simple.

I disagree. I have yet to have anyone present sufficiently strong evidence that (elaborate) crop circle have anything but a human origin.

Would you like to summarise the salient points?

I really not inclined at the moment to sit through 3 hours of video unless there is something that you feel is compelling enough to support your claim that there is something more to crop circles that a bunch of jokers with planks.

I do feel the testimonies are compelling enough to be worth the time. After hearing their testimonies, you will see how there is indeed "something more to crop circles that a bunch of jokers with planks." Straight from the "jokers" themselves. The word "hoax" is moot...obsolete.

 

[JoeEllison]

This reminds me of the whole "there's no black and white, there are only shades of gray" business. Sure, there are an infinite number of shades of gray. The ones on the far ends of the spectrum are also gray, but they are indistinguishable from black and white. By the same token, we can't make absolute statements about whether something like Bigfoot absolutely exists... but the logical position is indistinguishable from just saying Bigfoot absolutely doesn't exist.

 

[EHocking]

Simply read this page carefully, follow the instructions, and see for yourself. It's quite simple.

I asked for scientific evidence. That is a page trying to sell me $250 "worth" of DVD and asks, "How much success, prestige, respect and even $$$ can be yours with this mind-boggling power?"

Not quite the a scientific journal....

ETA, you might be interested in watching this thread on the subject in the forum, just a couple down from this one.
ETA pt2. I see you already have.

I do feel the testimonies are compelling enough to be worth the time. After hearing their testimonies, you will see how there is indeed "something more to crop circles that a bunch of jokers with planks." Straight from the "jokers" themselves.

Like what? What new evidence is in either of these two videos do you feel would be compelling enough for me to reconsider my position that crop-circles are anything other than man made?

The word "hoax" is moot...obsolete.

How so?

 

[drkitten]

You could dismiss him as such if he was diagnosed with some sort of mental illness by a doctor

Whups! Missed this the first time around, and it's truly stunning.

You're worried about my committing potentially fallacious reasoning ---- and your solution is to commit argumentum ad hominem?

So what if he's been diagnosed with some sort of mental illness? Just because he's crazy doesn't mean that what he says is untrue. Even crazy people make true statements. The statement "you shouldn't believe anything he says; he's schizophrenic" is a classic ad hominem.

So what you're suggesting is to replace a very useful fallacy with a nearly useless one.

Well done, deep44!

 

[Belz...]

Well, I agree - it certainly does appear to be a hoax, but what if it isn't?

You sound like Juror #8 in "12 Angry Men".

It's "possible" that electrons are made of styrofoam, or that planets are held in orbit by invisible miniature Darth Vaders.

 

[Belz...]

a) there's a difference between believing something is true, and claiming that there is proof that it's true.

Is there ?

b) we're really talking about skepticism in the context of debate, or interaction with others.

No, we're talking about pragmatic uses of skepticism in all venues.

I don't think many scientists entertain the possibility that aether exists, or that the moon is made of Swiss cheese. And they shouldn't, even if it is a "possibility".

 

[Belz...]

You could dismiss him as such if he was diagnosed with some sort of mental illness by a doctor - other than that he just failed to prove his claim.

No, no, no. Who cares what doctors say ? Isn't it possible that he's NOT a lunatic, nonetheless ?